Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/luanpdd/kit-mcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/luanpdd/kit-mcp/auditar-observabilidade-cobertura-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/luanpdd/kit-mcp/auditar-observabilidade-cobertura-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/luanpdd/kit-mcp/auditar-observabilidade-cobertura-workflow/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/luanpdd/kit-mcp/auditar-observabilidade-cobertura-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/luanpdd/kit-mcp/auditar-observabilidade-cobertura-workflow.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00051 | $0.01342 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00671 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00268 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00134 |
Grade A, and why
auditar-observabilidade-cobertura-workflow scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
auditar-observabilidade-cobertura-workflow
PoC — Dynamic Workflows (Opus 4.8+). Mesma intenção do
/auditar-observabilidade-coberturamas executa em paralelo viaWorkflow(): 1 agent por Edge Function auditando as 4 dimensões + verify adversarial só nos gaps reportados + synthesizer final.
Use este comando para comparar wall-clock e qualidade do report contra a versão serial.
Por que existe (PoC):
- A versão serial encadeia N funções × 4 dimensões em UM agent — context grows linearly, foco se perde a partir de ~30 funções.
- Esta versão tem 1 contexto por função (audit pequeno, foco preservado) + verify só onde houve gap (cost-controlled).
- Cross-suite (v1.9 + v1.10 + v1.12) intacto — só a topologia muda.
Output: mesmo .planning/OBSERVABILITY-COVERAGE.md da versão serial (mesma estrutura), permitindo diff direto.
Pré-requisitos:
- Claude Code Max / Team / Enterprise (Dynamic Workflows em research preview)
Workflowtool habilitada na sessão- Resto idêntico ao command original (projeto Supabase + MCP recomendado)
Quando usar PoC ao invés do original:
- Você tem ≥ 10 Edge Functions e quer medir ganho real
- Você está validando se Dynamic Workflows cabe no kit-mcp antes de migrar outros orquestradores
- Auditoria pesada que hoje toma > 10min na versão serial
1. Parsear argumentos
TRAFFIC_WINDOW=$(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | grep -oE -- '--traffic-window [^ ]+' | awk '{print $2}')
TOP_N=$(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | grep -oE -- '--top-n [0-9]+' | awk '{print $2}')
DIMENSIONS=$(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | grep -oE -- '--dimensions [^ ]+' | awk '{print $2}')
OUTPUT_PATH=$(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | grep -oE -- '--output [^ ]+' | awk '{print $2}')
[ -z "$TRAFFIC_WINDOW" ] && TRAFFIC_WINDOW="30d"
[ -z "$TOP_N" ] && TOP_N=5
[ -z "$DIMENSIONS" ] && DIMENSIONS="signals,slo,burn-alert,characterization"
[ -z "$OUTPUT_PATH" ] && OUTPUT_PATH=".planning/OBSERVABILITY-COVERAGE.md"
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 7d ago First seen · 122 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 867f115716e5
auditar-observabilidade-cobertura-workflow is a command published in the GitHub repository luanpdd/kit-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,342 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.